OPENCORES.ORG

However, this is missing the point. The problem is not *freedoms*, it's

>However, this is missing the point. The problem is not *freedoms*, it's 
>*obligations*: what obligations do you take on by accepting the licence?

>Instead of starting with freedoms, I'd suggest taking as a base point 
>having *no* licence, and releasing code which is not copyrighted. This 
>act itself specifies the allowed freedoms far more eloquently than any 
>statement of principles. You could then, if you really wanted to (and I 
>can personally see no real reason to do this), progressively add two 
>classes of obligations:

>a) Your obligations if you 'use' the unmodified code

>b) Your obligations if you 'use' 'modified' code.

>However, if you want to start adding obligations, you need to start by 
>stating exactly *why* you wish to place obligations on the user. Can 
>anyone tell me why it is that they want to do this?

>Richard

In this context freedoms and obligations has the same meaning. When you
define the freedoms of the user you are implicitly defining the obligations.

When these freedoms or obligations will be defined we can select what kind
of license fits better with them. 

Some obligations and desirable things discussed are:

- Protect the author from any claims
- Get the author's name out
- People can use the core for commercial purposes
- License should be compatible with other licenses
- No need to contribute back the modifications
- The documentation of the chip should clearly provide credits and the      
  disclaimer.
- If anybody uses a chip containing open source IP on a board, the board's
  documentation does not need to provide credits and the disclaimer.
- People who develop a enhanced version must publish the details of the  
  INTERFACE 

What do you think?

Javier Castillo

_______________________________________________
http://www.opencores.org/mailman/listinfo/cores